Seagull 4B-1 Review: Pros and Cons
Pros and Cons
As with any camera, there are both pros and cons associated with this camera:
Pros:
—–inexpensive: I got mine for $125 new from a merchant on ebay
—–medium format: Larger negative size, much better resolution that a 35mm camera
—–multiple fomats: shoot either rectangular or square images in 6×4.5 or 6×6 format
—–twin lens reflex design: no camera shake from a spring action mirror like on SLR’s
—–fixed focal length lens: the Haiou SA 85 75mm f3.5 has greater resolution and is faster than many zoom lenses
—–all metal body construction: the only plastic parts on the camera are the focus knob, film advance knob and the back locking knob, the rest is solid metal.
—–no batteries: your camera will never run out of juice, only film
Cons:
—–seperate shutter cocking and film advancing levers: it can sometimes be easy to forget to advance the film before taking an exposure, resulting in double exposure
—–no built in light meter: for some this adds an extra piece of equiptment, a handheld light meter, to their camera outfit
—–leaf shutter: relatively slow shutter speeds, plus you cannot adjust the shutter speed once you have cocked the shutter
—–parallax error: although this is more uncommon unless you take very close up shots with your waist level viewfinder, or shots closer than 10ft with the “sports finder” this is a realistic concern
—–only takes 120 format film, not 220: 220 film gets twice as many pictures as 120, but the roll is roughly the same size mainly because of an absence of paper backing on the film. The most picures you can get from a roll of 120 film is 16 exposures.
—–medium format film processing: if you are the person who will only take your film to the pharmacy to be developed (you know who you are, I was once one of you) you will not like developing this film. Only specialty photolabs will develop medium format (even living in the image capitol of the world it took me a little time to find a lab that would develop my film) for those living in rural areas often times mailers are the best ideas. Processing medium format black and white film in the home darkroom is no harder than processing 35mm film, and may enlargers are medium format capable. You may need a different negative carrier or enlarger lens to do so.
—–quality control in manufacturing: for the price this camera is an excellent investment as a first step into medium format photography, however because the cost of the camera is relatively very low to other medium format cameras keep in mind that the quality control is not on the same levels as brands like mamiya, canon or nikon. If you search the web I’m sure you can find horror stories of consumers who purchased a defective seagull, but you can find such stories for any camera, a friend of mine had a brand new rebel 2000 die in his arms. In the same way, keep in mind that you are purchasing a camera from a foreign company, and that returning a defective seagull for repair will certainly not be as easy as going to canon to get your camera repaired.
Source: Photosig
Rolleiflex Automat K4B Review
I’ve been wanting to dabble with medium format film photography for quite a while. It appealed to me even before I bought my first DSLR, but the prices of new equipment put me off and anyway, digital was where everything seemed to be heading.
Digital photography has some major advantages. Things like instantly being able to view your photo as soon as you’ve taken it, simply downloading your photos to your computer without having to scan them and never having to buy film. But part of me was rebelling against all the technology and electronics. Photography seems to have become more and more melded with the world of the computer over the last ten to fifteen years. I see reviews of digital cameras in computer magazines and I wonder what on Earth they are doing in there. Yes, a digital camera contains a lot of electronics, but so too does a washing machine and they never seem to review those.
I recently stumbled across some old negatives shot from the 1920′s through the 1930′s by my grandfather using 120 roll film and seeing the quality of the images they produced re-ignited my interest in film based photography and medium format in particular.
120 roll film is still available so I started to look seriously into the possibility of obtaining a working camera which would utilise that size of film. I kept an eye on eBay for ages, but so many which were on offer there had internal fungus on the lens. I didn’t really want to start my ownership of a camera by stripping down and cleaning the lens so I started to look for specialist dealers in vintage cameras.
I ended up calling Collectable Cameras after seeing their advert in Amateur Photographer. I explained that what I was looking for was a 120 film camera, capable of shooting 2 1/4 inch square negatives which was in full working order – but I had a very limited budget. I didn’t expect them to have something available for me right there and then, however they did mention that they had a Rolleiflex which worked but was in a rather sorry state cosmetically. As the average camera collector wants a camera which looks nice on a shelf the price for this one was eminently affordable. After asking a few questions and obtaining the answers I wanted to hear, the order was placed and the camera arrived on Friday morning along with a lens hood and a “Focal Press” camera guide to the Rolleiflex printed during the early 1950′s.
On Friday evening I familiarised myself with the basic functions of the camera before I loaded any film. Certainly everything seemed to be in full working order, even the self timer worked. The dials for selecting shutter speed, aperture and focus were all as smooth as butter and the shutter certainly sounded healthy.
I checked the the serial number of the camera at the RolleiClub web site and was rather pleased to find that this actual specimen was made sometime between April 1939 and October 1945. Judging by the range of serial numbers I would have thought it quite likely to have been built anywhere between 1942 and 1944.
Suddenly I had a huge sense of the history of the object that was sitting in my hands. What photos had this camera taken during nearly 70 years?
Time for a few technical details. The taking lens is a 75mm Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar f3.5, the viewing lens is a Heidoscop Anastigmat 75mm f2.8. On these cameras it was quite common to have a wider aperture on the viewing lens than the taking lens; if it was in focus on the viewing lens then it certainly would be on the taking lens – quite a clever idea. This Tessar has apertures of 3.5, 4, 5.6, 8, 11 and 22. The shutter is a Compur Rapid with speed settings of B, 1, 1/2, 1/5, 1/10, 1/25, 1/50, 1/100, 1/250 and 1/500. There is no built in metering and I don’t have a hand held meter yet, so for now I’m metering using one of my more modern cameras (today I was using my Canon EOS 7D as a light meter for the Rolleiflex – the idea of which sort of makes me chuckle). Focussing is possible from a range of about 3 feet to infinity.
Talking of focussing, here is the view you get looking down into the waist level finder :-
The brighter spot in the middle of the focussing screen is used for “critical focus” and works a bit like a rangefinder. First you get what appears to be a “close enough” focus by looking at the whole image. There is a fold out magnifier (not shown in the photo above) which flips out so that you can get a closer look, particularly at that split prism focussing spot in the middle. This spot is split across the middle horizontally. When the top half of the image lines up with the bottom half of the image you have your focus nailed.
There is also an “eye level finder” at the back of the camera. A mirror is ingeniously included as part of the waist level finder and this can be flipped out to reflect the image from the finder screen to the eye hole at the back. It’s all so very well thought out and engineered. I might have to see if I can shoot a little video of the focussing mechanism when I’m a bit more used to it.
I put a roll of film through the camera earlier today. I want to look at the results before I take any more. I’ll report back on the photos when the film has been processed. My plan for now is to send the films off to a professional lab for processing only, no prints. Once they are delivered to me I’ll scan them in and do any post processing I want to do – and of course upload them so that you can see them on my blog – if they are worthy! I’ll be amazed if there’s anything acceptable from this first roll. It feels so very different to using a modern DSLR and there’s a lot to get used to (particularly seeing everything reversed horizontally on the focussing screen).
Source: http://squonky.wordpress.com/
Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS Tessar Review
Source: http://www.djcphoto.com/index.php/1956-rolleiflex-automat-mx-evs-tessar/
I’ve always had a soft spot for twin lens reflex (TLR) cameras, so called because they use separate lenses for viewing (the upper) and taking the image. As a child I remember being fascinated with my father’s Yashica TLR, with it’s intricate controls and mechanical precision, and I thought the view through the waist level finder was pure magic! He took hundreds of photos of our family with that camera, and the negatives it produced still look great today.
It was perhaps inevitable then, giving my early introduction to these cameras, that I would eventually want to get one for myself. It took longer than I might have thought, being distracted by various other camera types and systems along the way, but I am now the proud owner of a pair of Rolleiflex Automat TLRs.
1956 Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS Tessar
Made in Germany in 1956, with typical Teutonic efficiency, this particular model is fitted with a 75mm F/3.5 Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar taking lens. It takes 120 roll film, giving twelve 6x6cm square images per roll. The quality of both the build and the results is excellent. The Tessar lens is a little soft wide open, but stopped down to around F/8.0 it is fantastically sharp! The shot below was taken in the studio on Kodak Professional BW400CN film and demonstrates what this little lens is capable of.
1956 Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS Tessar
With the viewing hood collapsed, the Rolleiflex is very compact for a 6×6 medium format camera and, compared to the versions with the faster F/2.8 lenses, remarkably lightweight too. The lens is non-interchangeable which means there is no temptation to carry a bag full of lenses with you which you’d probably never be bothered to use anyway. A range of close up lens attachments are available if you need to focus closer than the standard one meter (Rolleinars), but that’s it as far as optics. It’s great to be able to sling the camera over your shoulder, shove a meter, a few filters and a couple of rolls of film in your pocket, and know that you still have a camera that can produce high quality medium format images with the minimum of fuss.
1956 Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS Tessar
The Automats are still available for reasonable amounts of money if you shop carefully, although prices have been on the rise quite alarmingly lately. I paid less than $150 each for both of mine, although on one of them the slow speeds needed some attention as the leaf shutter tends to gum up with old lubricant over time. This is very common with these cameras, but is an easy and relatively inexpensive fix for any competent repairman.
1956 Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS Tessar
In my opinion, the Automat range of Rolleiflex cameras are one of the best medium format bargains if you’re looking for a camera to use, rather than collect. Although they are all over fifty years old now, in good condition they can still produce stunning results on par with almost anything else out there.
TLRgraphy 